February 1, 2008

I've been thinking about how we often classify Christians as "liberal" or "conservative". Most often, we equate "conservative" with "Biblical", and "liberal" with "heathen". This is somewhat strange. If someone is heathen, then he/she is not Christian. Therefore, liberals are not Christian. This tradition harks back to the Pharisaism of Jesus' time. I propose that within Christianity, there's either "conservative" or "progressive". Outside of Christianity, there are two kinds of people who would label themselves "Christian": on the reactionary side, there are the "fundamentalists". On the liberal side, there are the "universalists" I want to dwell on the first three.

What's the difference, you may ask?

If you're conservative, you generally believe in the Gospel. You see some (but not all) parts of society and the Church as redeeming, and you wish to keep that. For example, the fact that abortion is available is troubling to you because it is murder. The easiest and most expedient way to get rid of that is to ban it, and only the government can ban things. Thus, you tend to use the government for social change.

If you're progressive, you also believe in the Gospel. You also see some (but not all) parts of society and the Church as redeeming. However, you do believe in the importance of the Church in achieving positive social change. Thus, liberal government policies may not disturb you quite as much because it is the Church that must initiate the social change, not the government.

If you're fundamentalist, you worship the Bible above God. Sounds kinda weird, but it's not. The fundamentalists love the phrase: "The Bible says..." This is dangerous because God speaks to us in more ways than just the Bible. True, the Bible is important because it is the basis upon which other revelations are tested. If God chooses to speak through a prophet, the fundamentalist will ignore that prophet because the Bible says... the Bible says...

Here's a funny example. Suppose a person is driving and encounters a STOP sign in an inconvenient spot. The universalist/agnostic would say, "That STOP sign can mean anything. To me, it is governmental infringement upon my right to drive as I want. Therefore, I will not stop." The fundamentalist will read the Bible. Unfortunately, the Bible said nothing about the STOP sign. So, the smarter fundamentalist will think a little bit. "God did tell us in the Bible to obey our government. The government placed the sign. Therefore, I shall STOP until the sign says GO".

This spills over into politics. I am sick and tired of hearing abortion as a political issue when it is really an issue of the culture. For many, abortion is bad ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES. In China, many abortions happen, but I hear NOTHING from Christians in the U.S.A speaking out against that. This is not pro-life. This is pro-theocratic-America. We don't mind exporting abortion to other countries as long as we don't practice it. Same for homosexual rights. It's fine if the Netherlands has it, but not the United States!

Even the pope thinks clearer than Protestants on this matter-- that abortion, contraception, etc. is an issue of lifestyle. Correct that lifestyle, and abortion will become a figment of an issue. America is not the Vatican, and so long as it is not the Vatican, it is obligated to allow services that are asked of by the citizens. That's democracy, my friends, and it's not the oh-so-beautiful institution that we like to think it is. What many Christians want is a Protestant Vatican where the Christians choose the protestant Pope.

So I argue that it's time to be progressive about how we think "conservative" means. To be conservative is really not so much about treating America as a Protestant Vatican. Rather, it is the empowering of the Church to be the salt and light of the culture. It is a change that is not based on laws, but change based on the person. That is longer lasting and, I would say, better.